The classics of modern metaphor research

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson will present with "Metaphors We Live by" an exciting and entertaining written book that nevertheless corresponds to scientific requirements. Therefore, it is certainly become a classic, in which no cognitive scientific contribution to research metaphor passes more.
Lakoff and Johnson rooms (everyday) metaphors an important place in our thinking. You are not alone decorative accessory of language, but structured in a way mental concepts. So Lakoff and Johnson start with an example that you as the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor designate. They claim that our concept would structured by "armed" substantially by transferring our concept of "war". Evidence for that they see in a variety of linguistic expressions as "I attacked his argument", "He Was Defending his point", etc. This transfer of a concept to another is by Lakoff and Johnson a strategy of the mind to make especially abstract things by resorting to some experience writable details such as when you're talking about "theory" in the terms of "buildings". (Especially with the above ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor but this explanation seems somewhat questionable.)
Furthermore go Lakoff and Johnson believes that most metaphors are classified into a system of other metaphors: There are, for example, a lot of linguistic images, the "top-existent" describe something good in any way (I feel high) on the other hand a bad thing as "down" (according to: I feel down).
Lakoff and Johnson think that this metaphor systems on the one hand based on basic physical experience, but on the other hand can be passed on in a culture. So it was about to imagine that in a culture where the structure is "armed" not in terms of "war", but, for example, as a form of "dancing" would, also was a different culture of debate.
But here also lies the biggest problem of Lakoff and Johnson's method: They postulate an influence of thought on language and vice versa, but their empirical material is limited to linguistic expressions. Thus they move close to a tautology: They say people would speak in a certain way because they think the way they think you can indeed recognize their language. Here a stronger reference on psychological or psycho-linguistic, experimentally verifiable empirical material would have been useful. Ever refrain Lakoff and Johnson completely forward to problematize their theses to find counterexamples or quoting other authors. So her speech is very convincing at first glance, are probably therefore also very good and quick to read. Nevertheless, you should for all his enthusiasm about this wonderful book written not forget the critical questioning of certain aspects of the presentation. (This is an Amazon.com at the university-student review.)